Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I understand what you want but I don't understand why you want it. If Concord did not attack your enemy nor attack the logistics healing your enemy it sounds like there was no criminal activity going on, at the most it was just suspect activity.

If they are not committing a crime then they should not be shot.

If they are committing a suspect act then other players can kill them at will. But Concord should not get involved.

It sounds like you got ganged up on, sorry but it happens.

Just so you know there are these things called Fleets. You can start one up and invite other players to join you and you can go around and play together even if you are not in the same corporation or alliance. Making Logistics get Concorded for wanting to help their fleet members would be a very stupid idea. But even if they are not in the same fleet see the above comments.

If Concord did not step in then they were obviously not committing a crime.

By repeating same over and over again you dont add anything to discussion. Also you're missing the fact that fleets can(and often do) contain pilots from different corps/alliances.

This is actually addressed by removal of the person from corp. Hopefully the corp members had the presence of mind to kill the corp mate before ejecting him.

The problem with suspect flagging in this case is that it breaks legit uses such as pick up fleets running missions.

In either case, remote repping is far from being broken but addressed in all cases.

AWOXers suck... but they legitimately happen when poor choices are made in corporate membership.

ok drama queen lets go over this. when the logi give reps. shoot him along with your 5 friends....issue solved

dont have 5 friends? get a better corp or recruit pilots that need a better corp


sloved. next?

I guess you didnt think about how this mechanic would devastate incursion fleets then eh? Hard to run sites if your logi pilot saving your ass from the sansha rats is getting concorded >.>

Next time, think through how this affects everyone and not just you.

No, this does not address the issue, since removal of the offending person from the corp happens AFTER the damage is done. AWOXers usually leave immediately anyway after the kill(s) to deny retribution of any kind from the corp.

This argument is almost the equivalent of saying that Neutral RR (before crimewatch) was addressed by simply avoiding combat with a person who has it - in both cases the problem is clear, you can't know until it's too late.


Could you elaborate what you mean by this? I'm not trying to support the OP's solution.
I stated that a possible resolution (for the case of AWOXing and neutral RR) would be to have combat between corp members create an LE flag between each other thus an AWOXer's neutral RR would become suspect flagged once he/she began remote assistance.

Yes this 'solution' is not without flaws because it would mean that any in-corp remote assistance to the in-corp victim would also result in suspect flagging but it would still be an improvement over the current system where AWOXers can have potentially infinite neutral RR without consequence.

Crimewatch for non-0.0 space needs to be expanded on someday as the amount of possible scenarios of aggression mechanics are too broad to revolve around just LE and Suspect flags.


Yes there are many examples of corporations who could have prevented AWOXing incidents by doing some simple background checks on players prior before granting them membership. But there are also many cases where potential AWOXers cannot be predicted, especially with new characters with little to no history.
You do not even need more than a million SP to cause significant damage to a corp, just a cruiser and neutral RR.

Good to here some people with manners to actually discuss the problem/exploit. By changing the rule to make neutral reppers joining fleets, it forces the players to join a corp or the corp that is war dec'd or doing the war dec'ing. Neutral reppers that RR any ship in any way or form should be concordable offence. Then they would have to deal with any form of consequences that come there way for assisting that corp and not being part of any war of any kind. Neutral RR's should be concorded for that. That is called retribution. Players run to NPC's because of fear of being taken to war like yellow belly chickens. Interference from a neutral RR should be a concordable offence.

Sorry, the forums ate the post I was working on.

But to summarize:

To The Reaper J - The idea of making something that benefits another player a criminal offense in and of itself - regardless of circumstance, is shortsighted and neglects a lot of how the game is played. There are many instances where leaving your corp to join another to run missions or incursions with friends is neither desirable or convenient. Heck, random mining fleets where repping is provided would be negatively impacted. Also, do not forget the afore mentioned fact that outside of in-corp fighting, neutral repping flags you as a suspect allowing anyone to shoot you.

Let me illustrate a better way below.


To StrongSmartSexy - Yeah, my comment about Concordable action was more of a statement of fact about the repping than accusation .

There are always methods to improve coding. But the primary complication here arises from Corporation members being able to freely shoot each other without dueling. I think Crimewatch is better than what we had before, but if it were to be improved to address remote repping without penaly I believe the two following things must happen together:

1 - Members within a corporation should no longer be allowed to shoot each other freely outside of dueling and...
2 - A CEO can flag and unflag corporation members for mutual PvP which can be declined (the flagging) by the member. It can be further expanded to allow mutual PvP within an alliance so that High Sec Alliances can have war games without fear of being concorded, or having members leave to form a new corp, or leave Hgh Sec. Only a CEO can add a member to the list and there would be two columns: Corporation and Alliance. The Corporation check box marks the player for in corp PvP while the alliance check box marks the player for in alliance PvP. Only those marked for PvP in their respective areas can freely engage in it. Also, as a precaution, any CEO within the alliance can remove someone from the Alliance PvP list if necessary.

For removal of someone from the PvP list: After a 15 minute timer, they would not longer be able to engage other PvP flagged corp/alliance members without flipping their safeties off.

Corp members can only accept the PvP flag when they are docked.

The PvP flag should be something accepted by the player, as opposed to imposed.

This would alter some game play as far as Corporations exacting "justice" on a rogue member, but I've always thought there should be a special way to deal with corp thieves than just waiting for them to undock prior to their leaving/being kicked from the corp.

It would perfectly push incursions to nullsec/lowsec, I like!

You mad bro?

You sad?